Das Kapital - Capital: Best Online Edition
For example, a hammer might be worth two screwdrivers. An object doesn't have an exchange value in itself, but only in its relationship with other objects. However, the fact that the hammer and screwdriver can be exchanged at all suggests that there must be something common between them, some means of comparison. Marx says that this is the object's value. Value means the amount of labor it takes to make the commodities. This labor theory of value is very important to Marx's theory. It implies that the price of commodities comes from how much labor was put into them.
One implication of this is that objects with natural use-value, such as forests and other natural resources, do not have value because no labor went into them. One problematic question, then, is how such natural resources can have exchange-value people do spend money on them without benefiting from labor. It is also important to consider how Marx's conception of the roots of exchange value differs from modern economic theory.
In modern theory, something's exchange value is rooted in people's subjective preferences. While the amount of labor required would be linked to the supply curve of a commodity, its exchange value is also determined by the demand curve. Marx focuses exclusively on labor. This book also gives a general sense of Marx's approach in Capital. Here he dissects one aspect of the modern capitalist system and presents a schema for understanding why it functions as it does. Later Marx will analyze things like the role of money and the capitalist.
While this book makes many historical and sociological arguments, it is largely a book of economic theory and its implications. One thing to consider when thinking about Marx's characterization of capitalism is where this capitalistic ethic came from. Marx says that capitalists have an endless need for more money, and that the system of capitalism requires and perpetuates this attitude.
Even if this is true, however, it does not explain how capitalism developed in the first place. What made people view M' as an end in itself? Where does this thirst for profit come from? Marx's description does not spend a lot of time explaining how people could have come to develop these ideas. This limitation is a potential theoretical difficulty. Marx spends a lot of time discussing the ways in which capitalism is rooted in social institutions.
Capitalism is not natural, but rather depends upon social structures, such as property laws. One social factor that is very important for Marx's theory is that the workers don't own the means of production. Because of this, they must sell their labor to others. It is precisely because workers do own their own labor that they are able to give up all claims to it, by selling it as property. As a result, they don't own the commodities they produce; somebody else owns their labor and the products of that labor.
The result is that workers become alienated from their labor—they do not control or own what they create. In Marx's framework, labor-power is a commodity in the market. Its value is determined in the same way as for other commodities, and it is used by capitalists as another commodity in the production process. Marx's labor theory of value becomes very important when looking at the commodity of labor-power. A hammer's value comes from the amount of labor put into it. What, then, is labor-power's value?
Marx applies the definition of value—its value is the amount of labor needed to produce and sustain labor-power. Or more simply, it is the amount of labor needed to keep the laborer alive and functioning at his capacity. This concept will be very important in later chapters, when Marx will try to show that it is possible to exploit labor. Marx's labor theory of value again makes an appearance, as he tries to explain a seeming paradox. A capitalist purchases all of the inputs needed to make a commodity labor-power, raw materials, etc. He also sells the end-product at its value.
If this is the case, where does the surplus value come from? If there's no surplus value, then capitalism cannot exist, because there would be no profit. Marx's answer comes from the unique character of labor- power. Labor-power's use-value what it can create is not the same thing as its exchange-value what is needed to sustain the worker.
A worker sells himself at his value, but he produces more than this value. In this way, the capitalist gains surplus-value. This is significant, because it explains how exploitation can occur as the result of a series of freely made trades. The worker could complain that he is not being paid for the value of what he produces.
However, the capitalist can reply that the worker is being paid his value. Once the worker is paid for a day's work, the capitalist has the right to use him for a day. Justice is part of the overall mode of production of the times, and as a result, this exchange can be considered "just. Couldn't they demand higher wages, that match the value their labor-power produces?
Marx's answer is that the workers don't have the capacity to work without the capitalists; they require factories and other means of production. The workers are selling an abstract capacity to labor, and because of this, the capitalist is able to exploit them by only paying labor-power's value. Consider whether you think Marx's characterization of the labor market is fair. Does labor have the ability to fight exploitation and set wages closer to the value of what they produce? Think of this both historically and theoretically.
An important theme in Marx's work is class tension. According to Marx, all of history has been defined by class conflict. Modern times are no different in this regard, and are defined by tension between the capitalist and the worker. Marx describes one source of this tension in this chapter, as he mentions again the asymmetry between the use-value and exchange-value of labor-power already discussed in Chapter 7.
In this class conflict, the capitalists are the stronger class. This allows them to exert more force and define what workers will be paid. However, the fact that they are the stronger class does not simply give capitalists more bargaining power. Rather, social institutions such as property laws are defined to support the capitalists' needs. The mode of production reflects the economic system of capitalism.
It will continue to do so, and continue to favor the capitalists, until it self-destructs. It is important to realize that the capitalists cannot behave differently; there will always be tension between them and the workers. The very essence of a capitalist is his desire to gain surplus-value. The only way to do so is to exploit workers by failing to pay workers for the full value of what they produce. In order to survive, the capitalist must exploit.
Thus, the tension between workers and capitalists is structural. The capitalist system requires exploitation. Measures to ease workers' hardships, such as a minimum wage or welfare are simply band-aids; they cannot change what a capitalist is. May 05, Owlseyes marked it as to-read Shelves: Thenceforth, the class struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms.
Still, The Economist finds virtue in the ideology. I am glad there was one called Mises, to counter Marx: PS a propos China's case: PPS Still, some forget History: View all 30 comments. Did not agree with everything Marx said I should have done so when I was an undergrad, more than a decade ago.
This is not my first attempt, though. This edition seemed more manageable, due to being abridged and having a mere four introductions and prefaces. I read it at a third or less of my usual rate. The sections recounting the development of the industrial revolution are easier, as they are more historical than theoretical. For the most part, however, this is theory and thus dense and demanding. Nonetheless, I found it highly rewarding to read. If, like me, you have been mired in free market economic theory throughout your academic life, 'Capital' can be extremely satisfying.
Markets cannot achieve this and never have - why would they? Full employment only occurs with heavy government intervention, for example in the UK during WWII when much of the economy was nationalised. Although Capital is explicitly analysing relations between capital and labour at a specific point in time, there is an inevitable temptation to extrapolate to the present day from this and his other work — the Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy is often cited in recent commentary, I should read that. I found a number of points that meaningfully echoed the structural economic problems of today: The capitalist mode of production, while on the one hand, enforcing economy in each individual business, on the other hand, begets, by its anarchical system of competition, the most outrageous squandering of labour-power and of the social means of production, not to mention the creation of a vast number of employments, at present indispensable, but in themselves superfluous.
Its force increases with the accumulation of capital. I thought a lot about the service industries while reading 'Capital'. Children and women still work for long hours in terrible conditions to make cheap garments, but in Asia rather than Europe. The impoverished employees of the developed world are now largely in service industry jobs, essentially replicating the work of 19th century domestic servants that has escaped mechanisation. Instead, we hire snippets of servitude when getting a house cleaned, or a child minded, or food delivered to our door.
Generally such service workers are on insecure low-paid contracts, employed by large companies. Page has a tidy explanation of how service work can become productive to capital: In the two cases, he is wage-earning or hired by the day, but, if he works for the capitalist, he is a productive worker, since he produces capital, whereas if he works for a direct user he is unproductive.
Whereas a taxi driver working independently was not contributing to the accumulation of capital, an Uber driver is, as a parasitic firm skims off a portion of their takings. One thing I was left wondering at the end of the book was: By some bizarre convolution, tech firms seem to accumulate capital in the form of their own stock valuation, an abstraction that should depend on their capital, profits, turnover, etc. Tech giants and social media companies either make massive losses or profit only by advertising products sold by other companies. Their capital has melted into air, or bytes.
- See a Problem?.
- .
- Get A Copy.
- ?
- .
- Die Mitwirkungsrechte des Deutschen Bundestages in Angelenheiten der Europäischen Union hinsichtlich der Übertragung nationaler Kompetenzen auf EU-Organe (German Edition).
- Donde se tejen los cuentos (Spanish Edition).
This may be a function of the abridged edition I read, which contains almost all of Vol 1 but only extracts of 2 and 3, but I was surprised to find no speculation about the future path of capitalism. How much faster can the population be persuaded to consume? How much more of the day can be occupied by activities that generate revenue for businesses?
- The Nutcrackers of Oz!
- Das Kapital - Wikisource, the free online library.
- Das Kapital Capital?
Is there a point at which the credit system collapses under the weight of loans that can never be repaid? The division into working class, bourgeoisie, landowners, and capitalists was merely assumed as part of the context. Something I did locate, however, was the seed of Fossil Capital: In short, 'Capital' definitely did not disappoint. Dec 30, C. Granted I only read it the half way through. But it was still about pages that I read over this summer. It's unlikely that I will return to this book.
The experience of reading this book felt like taking a very difficult intellectual hike. The book was massive and very detailed. Maybe one day I can return to it and understand it better. If you want to know why Marx is considered to be a "Materialist" by some writers and thinkers, go no further. This is perhaps Marx most densely philosophical book.
Navigation menu
This is due to Marx breaking down much like Adam Smith--even with the same language the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism, how it works and what it does. It ultimately had to be finished by Marx sponsor Fred Engels who was a Capitalist bastard and you can't really tell the difference. Some think that Marx who was basically jou If you want to know why Marx is considered to be a "Materialist" by some writers and thinkers, go no further. Some think that Marx who was basically journalist could not have written this book.
And Capitalists worship this book. Thank you Karl Marx for telling us how it all works. This is definitely the book par excellence of Wall Street and is leather bound on a mahogany bookshelf in Gordon Gecko's office. This is no book on Communism. It's a beautiful song to Capitalism, how it came to be, piece by logical almost scientific piece. And for people who think people are just "resources" it's probably their Bible. Nov 12, Berry Muhl rated it did not like it. Soul-crushing in its hatred of human nature, and irritating in its misconstruing of economic maxims.
Beginning with a vast oversimplification of Adam Smith's theory of value, Marx proceeds to describe, for ants, bees and other insectile collectivists, the kind of economics he wishes had evolved among humans. He then offers--via a distortion of the Hegelian dialectic, which is itself a distortion of logic--a historicist, "scientific" account of how the "proletariat" will inevitably rise and t Ugh. He then offers--via a distortion of the Hegelian dialectic, which is itself a distortion of logic--a historicist, "scientific" account of how the "proletariat" will inevitably rise and take control of the world.
Conspiratorial, ignorant, brutally authoritarian. Nov 08, Vikas Lather rated it it was amazing Shelves: A revolutionary engagement with means of production, surplus value, alienation of labor, and other capitalistic phenomena. Read it and understand that the only real value is human labor Feb 22, David rated it it was amazing. I should say that I did not read this unabridged, I kinda doubt that even Trotsky did.
Apr 16, laura rated it it was amazing Shelves: Whatever your political stance it's impossible to deny the influence of Marx's works, this one in particular. It's a real wonder, how one persons ideology put into written word can shape the world even today. At the very least, you can appreciate it from that standpoint. Truly though, the book is convincing and reading it with historical awareness can enable you to enlighten yourself further.
It's a great read, and I look forward to reading his other works. Christ, this review sounds pretentious. Ritengo ci voglia una base di studi economici abbastanza buona in particolare per muoversi con appena accennata dimestichezza lungo il secondo libro ma con un po' di tenacia si possono superare passaggi difficili. Ho trovato alcuni punti poco interessanti dove scrive in modo critico nei confronti dei suoi contemporanei economisti in quanto non conoscendoli si fa fatica a seguirne il discorso e la critica. Oltrepassato lo scoglio del secondo volume il terzo risulta come il completamento di un ragionamento enorme.
Nel film di Paolo Villaggio "Fantozzi" si racconta che His remarks on the role of the capitalist and the way in which labour is exploited are many and pointed. This is just one of many, this is another.. Cost is measured in the amount of labour required for the worker to survive, profit a function of surplus labour that can be produced beyond that cost.
But just who the consumer is and how much both the capitalist and the labourer depend on him is left un-explored. Labour advocate, yes, but that does not directly lead to communism. The Communist Manifesto notwithstanding, communism as a system of government was developed much later and much of the personal suffering and oppression associated with communist regimes of the 20th century has less to do with the economics of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels than they do with the politics of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. Indeed toward the end of his life, after seeing what some groups where doing with his work, Marx himself famously stated was NOT a Marxist.
Oct 03, David Miller rated it really liked it. As many will note, Marxism in its most "Marxist" sense is basically an obsolete system. Das Kapital is very much a product of the nineteenth century, and a perceptive reader can easily find traces of modes of thought that are no longer of the moment. But socialism, more broadly, is very much a living thing, and it is just as readily apparent how important this critique of the corrosive effects of capitalism has been to socialism's development. The edition I read presents the core of Marx's analys As many will note, Marxism in its most "Marxist" sense is basically an obsolete system.
The edition I read presents the core of Marx's analysis and arguments while condensing it at the expense of sections the editor deems irrelevant to the present. Of course, what the "present" is to the editor is an important fact to consider: I can't seem to find the date of the introduction's original writing, but the events it references seem to place it in or , which in terms of economic history is rapidly growing remote.
Das Kapital
In any event an abridgment is welcome, since the prose itself is quite difficult. Even so, with careful reading it is still very possible to follow the line of the argument. Marx is known for a particular model of history, characterized as a series of eras defined by economic systems and characterized by the struggle between social classes. It is with this model that he not only explains how capitalism came to be which, much as he clearly despises the system, is still in accordance with "natural laws" as he defines them , but also predicts how it will ultimately destroy itself.
This model is, for me, one of Marxism's weakest points. Class struggle is a perfectly fine lens with which to view history, but it is not the only legitimate one, and predictions about the future based on a single ideological construct are hit or miss at best. With over a century between us, I think we can safely say things didn't turn out quite like Marx thought.
But after all that, I don't believe that capitalism has survived into the twenty first century because Marx was wrong about its true nature. If anything, Marx and his cohorts underestimated capitalism's ability and willingness to say and do anything to survive, making compromises and tactical retreats in order to retain a fundamental grip on society. One need only look at the financial crisis of , the ongoing exploitation of poorer countries by corporations looking to score cheap labor, or the tremendous burdens of student loan debt or health care costs to see that capitalism remains fundamentally amoral and recklessly unconcerned with the welfare of society.
And from where I'm standing, it's very hard to refute the moral implication of Marx's labor theory of value: Das Kapital is a strenuous read and not entirely convincing on all points particularly on the issue of history , but it puts the lie to capitalism, and in this century we need to hear that.
Economic Manuscripts: Capital: Volume One
Capitalism is not inevitable. It is not "human nature". It is an ideological justification for social inequality, and nothing more. Sep 08, Leo Hsieh rated it it was amazing. Das Kapital is one of Karl Marx's greatest published book, it was also the revolutionary book at that time period, even now this book provides a deep insight on capitalism and the pros and cons of it. This book, unlike the Communist Manifesto is more on a analysis on political economy and the ethics of a capitalist market.
The General Formula for Capital Ch. Contradictions in the General Formula of Capital Ch. The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power.
Constant Capital and Variable Capital Ch. The Rate of Surplus-Value Ch.
Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value. Division of Labour and Manufacture Ch. Machinery and Modern Industry. Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value Ch. Various Formula for the Rate of Surplus-Value. National Differences of Wages. Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital Ch.